Anyone foresee and issue here

N

need2eat

New Member
Ive set up my next HST cycle.

I was doing 1X15/2X10/3X5


I can't help but notice, the 3X5's are getting to be difficult.  

So for my new cycle, Ive added 5 lbs to any given RM, and began each block with 70% of that weight, filled in the middle, nothing new, there.

Heres the difference, instead of set changes per block, I plan to only do one set, instead, started from each RM and added reps going back to the beginning of the cycle.

Reps look like this:

first block 20,19,18,17,16,15  next block 15,14,13,12,11,10 next block 10,9,8,7,6,5



Thoughts, it looks like a winner to me, I have a feeling the 20's are gonna be interesting?  
biggrin.gif
 
The only problem I see is that you will not really be doing progressive loading because you will be working near your rep max most of the time, if I understood what you plan on doing correctly. I also don't see a lot of advantage to be working so much at such high reps unless muscle endurance is your goal. You might be better off using a cluster technique.
 
I think maybe you two misunderstood.


I have a 15/10/5 RM.


Each block begins with 70% of the RM and ends progressively with the respective RM, as recommended.

The only variation.  Instead of doing 15 reps for EVERY workout on the first block, I would start with 20 reps and REMOVE one rep EACH workout, until I reach 15 at my RM or the reps would looke like 20,19,18,17,16,15 instead of 15.15.15.15.15.15.

traditonal 10's, using two sets, would have the following total reps per workout:

20,20,20,20,20,20  my variation, it would appear 15,14,13,12,11,10  


5's would be the same as well.


I was thinking this would put emphasis on load, and also offer progressively less intensity, once I reach the 10's and offer more time to recover. Kinda put it between the single set basic HST program and the 1/2/3 set variation that I was doing.


Per HST priciples, I could skip the 15rm block entirely, then I would be doing a single set with more reps, yet less total reps.  Traditionally the 2X10 would offer 20 total sets across the board.  My plan would start with 15 and end with 10.


Make sense?  Still confused?  Still think its about endurance? Still thinking Im lost..haha?
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I can't help but notice, the 3X5's are getting to be difficult. </div>In which case why not just cluster the reps after the first set of 5?

I don't think dropping to a single set at the end of 5s is a good idea *unless* you are doing multiple exercises per bodypart. How many exercises are you doing each w/o? Even then, after a few sessions, your work done will no longer be progressing for each exercise.

Eg. Assuming that your increments are around 10lbs a session and you have no zig-zagging, you might get something like this for work done:

20 x 100=2000
19 x 110=2090
18 x 120=2160
17 x 130=2210
16 x 140=2240
15 x 150=2250
14 x 160=2240
13 x 170=2210
12 x 180=2160
11 x 190=2090
10 x 200=2000
09 x 210=1890
08 x 220=1760
07 x 230=1610
06 x 240=1440
05 x 250=1250

So, in this case, by the time you are working with your heaviest loading you are doing only 55% of the work you were doing back in the 10s. If the diffrerence between your starting and finishing loads was reduced (ie. your increments were smaller) then the results would be worse (ie. even less work done comparing last w/o to first w/o of cycle).

So it doesn't look like a winner to me.  
rock.gif
 
Actually.....


If I were to use one set across the cycle and 15 reps first block, 10 second and 5 the last block, the work will always progressively become less and this is considered a &quot;vanilla&quot; workout.


If I did what everyone seems to suggest, even the founder, one set 15's first block, 2 sets of 10 second block and three sets of five the thrid block, once I hit the 10's my work progression increases to my 10's RM, however, once I hit fives, the work progression on most exercises, decreases...as I went from 20 to 15 total reps.


Seems I was told, its not the work or intensity involved thats important, its the load increase.  Only way I could maintain increased intensity, would be to use the same number of reps every workout, throughout the cycle but again,  from what Ive read, intensity or work is unimportant, its the load.


I would cluster but the scientific mumbo jumbo states anything after the first set isn't necassarily gonna be beneficial, so I really don't see the point, why not just do what you can the first go round and move on?  This is also the reason Im trying to eliminate multiple sets, if its pointless, then whats the point?
 
I feel intensity is a determinant of how many sets/reps you are going to do. In the end it has been proven you will get the same results.

However if the only variables involved with lifting was intensity and tempo, you could simply get away with one set one rep really really freaking slow.

So, what really is the key to an effiecient muscle shreading workout?
 
Load has to be considered, to determine intensity, especially if your progressively adding weight.

Lets say rep speed is constant throughout to make this discussing simpler.
smile.gif
 
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 27 2006,09:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The only problem I see is that you will not really be doing progressive loading because you will be working near your rep max most of the time, if I understood what you plan on doing correctly. I also don't see a lot of advantage to be working so much at such high reps unless muscle endurance is your goal. You might be better off using a cluster technique.</div>
Iv done some calculating and from beginning to end, using my 20,19,18,17,----,7,6,5 rep scheme, the intensity or work done, drops progressively.  The vanilla HST routine, has the intensity or work decreasing per block, going from 15-10-5's but progressively increases within each block.


Are you suggesting, each block should progressively increase in intensity aka use the same total reps for ever block within the cycle and let the load progressively increase the intensity or work done, within each block? If so, doesn't this conflict with the one set is plenty research?  


Looks like im back to plan B

15's do one set of 15
10's, do  two sets (8 and 7)
5's do three sets of 5 but the entire time Im gonna be thinking, the second and third set is a big ass waste of time, per the scientific mumbo jumbo Ive read.  
biggrin.gif


Thoughts?  I know, I usually confuse the chit out of everyone before I figure it out.
 
and lastly, my reasoning for single set reps, decenting over the entire cycle and reasoning for only one set:

Progressively Adjusting reps to accommodate Progressive Load
HST suggests that you use 2 week blocks for each rep range. Why? It has nothing to do with adaptation. It is simply a way to accommodate the ever increasing load. Of course, you could adjust your reps every week (e.g. 15,12,10,8,5,etc), but this is more complicated and people might not understand. Often times, in order to communicate an idea you must simplify things, even at the expense of perfection. If people can't understand it, they won't do it. What good would that do or anybody? Then, over time, people figure out for themselves the other possibilities that exist within the principles of hypertrophy.

Low volume per exercise (average volume per week)
HST suggests that you limit the number of sets per exercise per workout to 1 or 2. This is based on &quot;some&quot; evidence that sets beyond the first &quot;effective&quot; set do little more than burn calories. There is nothing wrong with burning calories, but when you get to be my age you just don't have the exercise tolerance that you once did. Using hormone replacement (HRT) therapy would of course, increase the number of sets you could do without undue stress.

Some may question the validity of HST not utilizing more than 1 or 2 sets per exercise. The number of sets is set low to accommodate the frequency necessary to create an effective and consistent environment to stimulate hypertrophy. Over the course of a week, the volume isn't that different from standard splits (e.g. chest should tri, back bi, legs).
 
No, HST recommends as much volume as you can handle and still progress. Of course there are other factors to take into consideration i.e., frequency is a big factor, also the loads being lifted. Another is the condition of the individual training. A relative newbie will not be able to handle the volume of a stevejones.

It's pretty much an individual issue. For some 3 sets is too much, others it's nothing. HST principals help the individual find what works best for them.
 
It's always worth giving it a go but I feel that you will likely not be getting enough volume towards the end of the cycle. I think you would be much better sticking to a fixed rep count and ensuring that load and work done progresses through the cycle. If you find it all gets too much towards the end of the 10s or 5s then drop down to a single set then. It's only through your own personal experimentation that you will find what works best for you right now (it will likely change over time as you become more conditioned to training).

I totally agree that doing more than is necessary to get the job done doesn't make a lot of sense. However, as you don't yet know what that is it makes sense to do some experimenting.

I still don't know how many exercises per bodypart you are doing. I ask because at a 3 x weekly frequency it plays a part in volume required.

My experience has been this: I started out with HST doing a lot of exercises (around 12) each session. I did the standard 1 x 15s, 2 x 10s and 3 x 15s but it got too much at the end of 10s and during 5s (it was taking up to 1.5 hrs to get the job done) so I dropped back to 1.5 sets during second week of 10s and 2 sets during 2nd week of 5s. That worked well for a couple of cycles but then I decided to simplify things and dropped down to around 5 or 6 basic compounds. At that point I found I needed to do a few more reps over the vanilla set-up and finally settled on 20 for all stages of the cycle. That worked well. This cycle I am experimenting with 25 total reps per exercise. It's going well too but I have found that during the second week of 5s, 25 reps starts to take more of a toll on my joints than I would like for the frequency so I am dropping to 20 reps and adding a reduced set of 10 reps with my 15RM load. That keeps the work done up and spares my joints a little.

So give your ideas a go but always keep the four main principles in mind along the way and you should have success.
 
<div>
(need2eat @ Nov. 27 2006,20:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So...your saying give my concept a go?</div>
Ummm yeah. How will you know if it works if you don't try it?

Kind of like my experiment with my 2nd HST cycle.

Cycle #1 was 2x15, 3x10, 5x5. Great gains.

Cycle # 2 was 1x15, 2x10, 3x5...big mistake but I didn't know this until I tried it. It actually works terriffic for some. Me, I maintained but didn't gain.

You have a lifetime of bodybuilding and pursuit of fitness ahead of you. In the grand scheme of things what's an 8 week experiment to see how it goes? Nothing really so go for it.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">15's do one set of 15
10's, do two sets (8 and 7)
5's do three sets of 5 but the entire time Im gonna be thinking, the second and third set is a big ass waste of time, per the scientific mumbo jumbo Ive read.</div>
I don't know where this comes from. Add up the weights per workout. NOTICE the amount of work done. Doing LESS isn't going to be BETTER!

As for your experiment, it may work for you, or someone else. You just have to try it and see. We're not all of the same mold.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Nov. 28 2006,07:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">15's do one set of 15
10's, do  two sets (8 and 7)
5's do three sets of 5 but the entire time Im gonna be thinking, the second and third set is a big ass waste of time, per the scientific mumbo jumbo Ive read.</div>
I don't know where this comes from. Add up the weights per workout. NOTICE the amount of work done. Doing LESS isn't going to be BETTER!

As for your experiment, it may work for you, or someone else. You just have to try it and see. We're not all of the same mold.</div>
Its not less work, its a consistant 15 total reps across the cycle? Fraid your gonna have to explain what your talking about.

The last part, is based on the fact, one set is plenty, gets mentioned over and over.


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">(need2eat @ Nov. 27 2006,20:51)
QUOTE
So...your saying give my concept a go?

Ummm yeah.  How will you know if it works if you don't try it?
</div>

My main issue, was that it didn't conflict with any principles, I didn't feel it did, but it sure created some controversy for something insignificant, aye?  
biggrin.gif


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You have a lifetime of bodybuilding and pursuit of fitness ahead of you.  In the grand scheme of things what's an 8 week experiment to see how it goes?  Nothing really so go for it.</div>

I don't have as much time as others.  
biggrin.gif




<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I still don't know how many exercises per bodypart you are doing. I ask because at a 3 x weekly frequency it plays a part in volume required.</div>


Truth be told, only one exercise is becoming difficult for  me in the final stretch of the 5's, as you might guess, im hell bent on doing it cause im so close to my goal.  

Im doing minimal exercises.  I do 9 total exercises.  During the 5's, I cut two of those out entirely.  I also do a few odd and end exercises on off days,  basically abs.  Nothing major there.

Another reason for all this hoopla, I notice that at the end of the 3X 5's,  I can tell im pushing above and beyond to make it happen.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">5's do three sets of 5 but the entire time Im gonna be thinking, the second and third set is a big ass waste of time, per the scientific mumbo jumbo Ive read.</div>

No big ass time wasted at all dude, some volume is required fro things to work well, you may drop down to two sets on the second week of 5's when the weight is really getting to you, but putting in some volume works for most of us, unless like Steve Jones you only do one work set which means that he has done other lighter sets building up to the biggie.

This is what ends up confusing newbies, one work-set is the top weight for that exercise on that day, but if you squating 500 lbs you may have done 10 x 300, 5 x 350, 3 x 400, 3 x 450 building up to that big ass weight, make sense
rock.gif
 
Maybe it's age related, but I find that I make my best gains doing one set of three exercises per major bodypart in giant set fashion, period. It doesn't matter whether I am doing 15 reps or 5 reps. In a normal cycle, that gives me about 9 sets per major bodypart per week. If I did 3 sets of each, that would be 27 sets weekly which is way too much for me. With my workout consisting of 13 exercises, that would be 39 exercises per workout which is:

Excessive

Unnecessary

Overtraining (at least for me)

An awful long workout.

Too intense to make up for given the finite amount of food I can shovel into my kiester.


I would only do 3 sets if my total workout consisted of about 4 to 5 total exercises. Even then, I believe that would be less efficient than doing one set of multiple exercises per bodypart.

Anyway, do what works best for YOU but, remember, you can't know what works best unless you have tried all the variations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top